Reply #35: You are over simplifying the climate issue [View All]

[kristopher]

You are over simplifying the climate issue when you claim that everything one needs to know is to be found in raw met data. In fact it is simplification to the point of absurdity.
You're churning out a list of strawman arguments instead of actually addressing the points I've made. I didn't label you as a Republican, I explicitly separated what you might believe from what you say. I can speak specifically to what you say, and I have limited myself to that. It isn't me calling you a Republican; the association of your positions and beliefs (regarding energy policy and climate change) with the positions and beliefs of the Republicans on that topic are self apparent. I have no idea what you believe on other matters so it is reasonable to presume that in some other area more important to you than energy or climate change, you identify with the positions and beliefs of the Democrats.

So, no one is calling you anything except what you yourself throw out there. However, the fact is that your statements on energy and climate policy are founded on a concerted misinformation campaign. Your argument against that seems to be that even though it is perpetuated by a misinformation campaign, it may be correct, nonetheless. That is certainly true in the abstract sense when the arguments haven't been subjected to scrutiny for their accuracy. Fortunately, that isn't the case in this matter, the arguments you are offering have been closely examined. For the most part, they are a weave of cherry picked facts designed to produce a predetermined conclusion - they are advocacy argument in other words, not impartial analysis.

Let's use your latest offering as an example. You are declaring that your insight into climate matters is as good as anyones. That is an argument designed to appeal to that "anti-elitist" sentiment that the right is constantly fostering. The fact is that you haven't a hope in hell of making an informed judgment about the validity of the body of science related to climate change if you limit yourself to raw meteorological data. On its face that is a hard position to support since climate is long term expression of the earth's conditions that goes well beyond the range of all recorded met data. How could anyone hope to have a grasp of what is happening if they ignore the massive quantities of perfectly valid data and theory outside of those narrow weather readings?

So ignoring that obvious weakness, you condemn criticism as being designed to create an either/or atmosphere meant to exclude you based on your 'differing viewpoint', all the while playing to the 'anti-elitism' theme.

I'm not doing it, your viewpoint is speaking for itself.

I'm sure we probably agree on other things. I also don't embrace the Democratic position on a few issues (such as gun control), but I do share, with most Dems I know, a similar set of values about the human condition. I'm sure if we keep looking we'll find places where there will be a meeting of minds.